Millerton Overlook's environmental impacts

MILLERTON — The village Planning Board did more than pick up from where it left off in the environmental review process of the Millerton Overlook affordable housing application ­— it went back to the start of the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to check on the decisions made last month when it began the review process (since last worked on a few years ago).

Starting from the start

That process began at the March Planning Board meeting, when the EAF came under review as part of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process. Last Wednesday, April 14, new Planning Board member Peter Greenough brought up two points regarding the EAF: first he asked why two forms were mentioned when he understood last month the board was actually working off three EAF forms; then he noted that none of the EAFs were signed or dated by the applicant.

To the first point, Planning Board member Carol Gribble agreed.

“There were actually three different [EAFs], but we chose to work with two,� she said.

Greenough’s second point, meanwhile, was not immediately answered.

Newly appointed Planning Board Chairman Lance Middlebrook then began to lead those present through a review of what had been completed on the newest version of the EAF, so everyone could be on the same page. Questions were raised and answered throughout the process.

One of those questions was simple and direct — how many units will be in the final development? The answer was 20; 11 will be for families and nine for seniors, with a total of 41 bedrooms. There will be three buildings with two units; two buildings with three units; and two buildings with four units. That makes for a final tally of seven buildings and 20 units.

Engineer Ray Jurkowski, who is now working on behalf of the Planning Board after replacing engineer Paul McCreary, recommended the board review McCreary’s notes to make sure the information is accurate and complete, and their questions are answered.

A matter of semantics?

There was then some discussion as to whether the project site was “substantially contiguous� to the village’s historical district. Planning Board attorney Michael Hayes said there’s some interpretation required and that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) “left some room.� The tricky part was working with the two-lane highway of Route 22, separating the North Elm Street project from the Main Street historical district.

“If the road that divided it was a narrow country lane, or if it was a six-lane super highway [that would make it clear],� Hayes said. “What you have here is neither scenario, so under this circumstance there is room for interpretation.�

Middlebrook said it was “visually contiguous,� while Greenough said the issue was with the word “substantially.� Planning Board member John Gilmor, owner of Gilmor Glass, just across the street from the Millerton Overlook site, also had an opinion.

“I’m on that corner and it’s a whole different world across the street,� he said.

“I don’t think there’s any justification for interpreting substantially contiguous as visually contiguous,� Housing Resources attorney Scott Longstreet said. “If they meant visually contiguous they would have said so. I also disagree with your counsel.�

The DEC actually says a two-way highway is substantially contiguous,� Middlebrook said.

“And the argument that they have to touch in a substantial way is not at all supported by the DEC,� Hayes said.

Later in the meeting Hayes checked the DEC Web site on his BlackBerry.

“The DEC Web site states if it’s across a two-lane or four-lane road it’s substantially contiguous,� he said. “You have to consider how it is today. There’s no grandfathering it in.�

“I think it’s pretty apparent that number six would be changed to a “yes,� Middlebrook said.

Environmental details

Jumping back into the review, there was a question asking if any national natural landmarks would be affected by the project. Jurkowski said Thompson Pond, in Pine Plains, is the only natural national landmark in Dutchess County, so the answer was “no.�

Of the 3.72-acre site it was determined that 3.4 acres are to be developed. Longstreet noted that the actual development will be situated back from the road.

There was a question asking if there’s a primary, principle or sole source aquifer at the site.

“Based on our information, our understanding is there’s a principle aquifer, so the answer is ‘yes.’� Jurkowski said. “A principle aquifer is a highly productive source.�

There was also a question if there is a stream contiguous to the project area. The engineer said “no,� although one tributary raised concern, but it did not pan out on reliable maps.

The form asked if the project deals with any critical environmental areas. There are no such areas in Millerton; the closest is Stissing Mountain in Pine Plains. The answer was “no.�

Regarding solid waste on the site, it was estimated that 2.8 tons will be created monthly.

Water and turtles

The next point focused on drainage.

“I think the engineering report suggests drainage will be improved,� Greenough said.

“If we look at specific examples, it does change the flow pattern because directing the water away from the front of the site to the back of the site near the wetlands, my recommendation is that they be marked as changes to the flow pattern,� Jurkowski said. “Mark that as ‘yes.’�

Next the board dealt with storms — 10 years, 50 years, 100 years and so on.

“From an engineering standpoint we all use it,� Jurkowski said. “But it’s a terrible way to rate them. It’s all based on probability. It’s inaccurate to consider we had a 100-year storm last year so we won’t have another for another 100 years.�

The board discussed quality versus quantity of storms and how much of the site will be an impervious surface. Jurkowski then said it depends on the final design and the matter should really be discussed during the SEQRA process, when the applicant can provide its methodology. The DEC will also have to issue a permit for the storm water pollution plan.

Asked if the project will affect air quality the board said “no.� Asked if it will affect threatened or endangered species the board answered “yes.�

“We don’t have any threatened or endangered species that live there,� Gilmor said.

“If you don’t have the bog turtle study, you can’t say they’re not there,� Middlebrook countered.

Hayes said because the board voted to enforce a 300-foot buffer around the wetlands, it’s hard to say “no� to the above question.

“You have to prove or disprove,� he said.

When the point arose if the project posed a significant adverse environmental impact to the community, Longstreet objected.

“We’re only 2 percent of the drainage into the wetland,� he said. “Since the school and cemetery are not being regulated, they could be contributing substantially to [the wetland’s possible contamination].�

He also said that impact has been mitigated by the 300-foot buffer. He asked who suggested that besides the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. Middlebrook said it was also recommended by Eric Kiviat of Hudsonia. Longstreet then said Housing Resources has hired Kiviat to review the matter. Moments later he charged the board with making a determination before completing the EAF. Hayes objected.

“We’re filling out a draft form,� he said. “A decision hasn’t been determined. You don’t have a right to take over this meeting. You don’t.�

Aesthetics, recreation
and density

Middlebrook continued reading the EAF. Does this project threaten non-endangered species? “No.� Agricultural land? “No.� Aesthetic resources? “Yes,� was the reply, based on the Christmas tree at the top of Main Street that will have to be sacrificed to make room for the driveway. The board modified its response to say the project will make a small to moderate aesthetic impact that can be mitigated.

There was a question if the project will affect the quantity and quality of future open space and recreational opportunities. The board talked about it and said it was prime property for recreational uses.

“This is one of the few open spaces in the village,� Gribble said.

Hayes interjected.

“This is private property and not open to the town, and you can’t tell people not to sell their land,� he said.

A slew of other questions were then addressed. Will the project impact transportation, energy, noise and odor, public health and safety? All were answered “no.� Then it was asked if it will impact the character of the existing community. The answer, “yes.� It was said that the housing complex, once completed, will have a population of roughly 52 residents; the village of Millerton has a population of roughly 925. That means that Millerton Overlook will house about 5 percent of the village.

The board next answered “yes� to the following questions: Will the project impact density in land use; will it create a demand on additional services; will it create a precedent for future projects; and will it create public controversy.

That concluded the EAF review. No final declaration was made. The board did open the room up to public comments at the end of the meeting.

Public comments

Resident Skip North, also of the Millerton Gun Club (a neighbor of the project site), spoke first.

“There’s been no dumping into the swamp. That’s been a protected wetland since 1986,� he said. “We said we would not drain into, dump into, add into the swamp. We don’t even use fertilizer.�

Next rose resident Pamela Michaud with her comments.

“The scenic resources that would be lost could  be mitigated,â€� she said. “The village itself is a scenic resource. We left Westchester because it was built up and we wanted to hear birds singing. Maybe one building won’t make a difference, but I don’t think it’s a small thing.â€�

Resident DeLora Brooks addressed the board next about the village Christmas tree.

“Somebody donated that tree and there’s money in a  trust to take care of that tree,â€�  she said. “We need to do a little research about it before we saw it down and throw it in the garbage.â€�

The next resident to speak was Roger Wolf.

“Once the door is open, it’s open for good,â€� he said. “I saw Yorktown [develop and change] and the same thing is going to happen to Millerton. You get a few more people and you’re  going to need more police. Anybody think of that?â€�

Then spoke resident Eugene DeFloris.

“How is this project going to  benefit the village?â€� he asked. “That’s it. You decide.â€�

Resident Susan Pettibone submitted her comments in writing. She expressed concern over Housing Resources’ financial practices, the need for affordable and senior housing, aquifer pollution, water pressure and availability, traffic congestion, a change in demographics, a strain on services and bog turtles.

“I am only one of many locals who’d breathe a deep sigh of relief if discussions of this awful proposed project were finally concluded,� she stated.

Housing Resources will next get an updated version of Part I of the EAF to the Planning Board while the Planning Board will take charge of finalizing Part II.